The legal principle of ‘inalienability’ prevents public collections or state institutions from legally disposing of, selling, or transferring ownership of cultural assets.

Mediation often resolves disputes without addressing the legal title, focusing instead on long-term loans, the exchange of items, or sharing of artifacts.

Inalienable objects can be loaned long-term for exhibition while the holding institution retains legal ownership.

Development of a ‘New Paradigm of Restitution (‘NPR’)’ – watch my Talk on YouTube – ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’ There is a link on the home page at www.carlislam.co.uk

A Mediator can facilitate the joint-development by the Participants of a NPR, by steering the P’s:

(i) away from the past; and
(ii) toward a future relationship.

This requires a ‘paradigm shift’ from a rigid, legally binding, ‘all-or-nothing’ approach, to a collaborative partnership that addresses the ‘ethical duty’ to repair past injustices (‘Reparative Justice’), particularly those which occurred occurring during a period of colonial occupation or war.

If an item is deemed to be in the public domain, a public authority might be persuaded to initiate a legal process to remove the object from its inventory by ‘De-accessioning’, thereby permitting its legal transfer or return.

A Mediator can also help the P’s to ‘reframe’ the legal constraint of ‘inalienability’ as being an ‘opportunity’ to find a ‘creative solution’, such as donating items or replacing original items with high-quality copies, while the original is repatriated.

Mediation also enables the P’s to consider moral, emotional, and reputational interests that a court cannot, i.e. in the words of the famous 1970’s Carlsberg advert (paraphrased!) featuring Orson Welles – ‘[Mediation] reaches the parts that [Litigation] cannot!.’

A museum might agree to return an item, even if legal ‘inalienability’ is a factor, to avoid ‘reputational’ damage or to facilitate ‘cultural cooperation’ and ‘scientific collaboration’ with the state of origin.

In a nutshell, by agreeing to enter into Mediation, the P’s can sidestep the procedural constraints of national courts which strictly adhere to ‘inalienability’, because the process enables them to focus instead on the joint-exploration and development of ‘creative terms’, whereby a ‘win-win-win’ solution can be brought about through negotiation. I explain what I mean by this term in the concluding remarks in my Talk on YouTube.

I am currently writing a book for commercial publication in 2026/7 – the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’ See www.carlislam.co.uk